Debian LinuxOperating system · Debian
CVE-2011-0544
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedphpbb 3.0.x-3.0.6 has an XSS vulnerability via the [flash] BB tag.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidencephpBB 3.0.x through 3.0.6 contains a reflected Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the [flash] BBCode tag parser. The flash tag does not properly sanitize user-supplied parameters, allowing an attacker to inject malicious JavaScript that executes in the context of other users' sessions when they view posts containing the crafted flash tag.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data
Debian LinuxOperating system
= 8.0>= 3.0.0, <= 3.0.6CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- Required
- Scope
- Changed
- Confidentiality
- Low
- Integrity
- Low
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:C/C:L/I:L/A:N
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Locate phpBB installation and identify versionCheck your web server's document root for phpBB directories. Look for a file named 'includes/constants.php' or 'vendor/phpbb/phpbb/composer.json' and search for a version definition like 'PHPBB_VERSION' or similar version constants.Affected if The installed version is phpBB 3.0.0 through 3.0.6 inclusive.
-
Confirm phpBB version numberAccess the phpBB administration control panel (ACP) and navigate to the 'System' or 'General' tab where version information is displayed. Alternatively, inspect the version constant in the phpBB source code files.Affected if The displayed version falls within the range 3.0.0 to 3.0.6.
-
Verify flash BBCode is enabledIn the phpBB Administration Control Panel, go to the 'Posting' tab and click 'BBCode' to view the list of enabled BBCodes. Check if the [flash] BBCode is present and enabled.Affected if The [flash] BBCode is enabled in the forum's BBCode settings.
-
Check if flash BBCode accepts user parametersIn the BBCode settings, examine the [flash] BBCode definition to see if it allows user-supplied parameters for width, height, or URL. The vulnerable code handles these parameters without proper sanitization.Affected if The flash BBCode is configured to accept user-provided width, height, or URL parameters.
You are affected if phpBB version 3.0.0 through 3.0.6 is installed AND the [flash] BBCode is enabled with user-editable parameters.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade phpBB to a version beyond 3.0.6, or disable the [flash] BBCode tag if upgrading is not immediately feasible. Apply output encoding when rendering flash tag parameters.
Fix this in Debian Linux
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation3.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $2,272.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2011-0544 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2011-0544 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data